JAYSING RANGARAO RAUT Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the present petition was an employee of the 1st respondent. The petitioner as well as other employees of the 1st respondent were members of a trade union known as the Maharashtra Rajya Vij Mandal Nokar Sangh. On or about 6th February, 1967 the employees of the 1st respondent including the petitioner went on strike. This strike continued for some period. During the period of the strike, on or about 3rd March, 1967 a large number of employees of the 1st respondent had gathered in a open space at Sangli and they were shouting slogans. At about 5-30 P.M. on that day, a jeep belonging to the 1st respondent was proceeding to Budhgaon, carrying some of the engineers of the 1st respondent. These engineers wanted to go to Budhgaon for carrying out repairs to the water works at Budhgaon. This jeep was prevented from proceeding to Budhgaon by the employees who had gathered in the open space and the jeep had to go back. The petitioner was one of the employees who stood in front of the jeep and prevented it from proceeding to Budhgaon. Thereafter a criminal case was filed against the petitioner and 12 other employees in the Court of the judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangli, being Criminal Case No. 229 of 1968. The petitioner and the other employees were charged under the provisions of S. 147, 149, 341, 353 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. All the 13 accused in that case were convicted of an offence under Ss. 149 and 341 of I.P.C. and were fined Rs. 51 each : in default, they were ordered to suffer S.I. for two weeks. The occurred were acquitted of all the other charges. The case went in appeal before the District Court at Sangli in Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 1968. The Appeal Court acquitted 5 of the accused-employees and confirmed the sentence on the remaining 8 accused-employees including the petitioner. This order was challenged in revision before the High Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 144 of 1969. In Criminal Revision Application, 5 more accused were acquitted, but the sentence of the remaining 3 accused including the petitioner was confirmed. While all these criminal proceedings were in progress, the 1st respondent admittedly charge-sheeted the petitioner and held an inquiry. Thereafter the 1st respondent waited for the verdict of the District Court, which heard the Criminal Appeal filed by the accused. After the verdict of the District Court announcing the confirmation of the sentence passed on the petitioner, the 1st respondent by their order dated 2nd December, 1968 terminated the services of the petitioner with effect from 2nd December, 1968 and offered him one month's wages in lieu of one month's notice.

(2.) Prior to the strike, by an order dated 24-10-1966 the State of Maharashtra had referred certain disputes between the 1st respondent and its employees with regard to gratuity, casual leave, earned leave, etc., for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. Similarly by another order dated 3rd December, 1966 the State of Maharashtra had referred a dispute between the 1st respondent and its employees in respect of bonus for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. Both these references were pending on the date of the order of termination of service passed against the petitioner on 2nd December, 1968. The petitioner, therefore, filed a complaint under S. 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal contending, inter alia, that he was removed for his trade union activities, that the Board had instituted a departmental inquiry and had charge-sheeted the petitioner and that a colourable order terminating his service was issued by the 1st respondent on 2nd December, 1968. In the written statement, which was filed by the 1st respondent in answer to the plaint, the 1st respondent had raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the Tribunal had become funclus officio and it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the petitioner. On merits, the 1st respondent took the stand that the order of termination was issued under Regulation 24 of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board Employees' Service Regulations and that the order of termination was not an order of dismissal under Regulation 88 of the above Regulations.

(3.) Regulation 24 is as follows :